Actually, there are minor differences between the exterior of the 4 and 4S. In holding both of mine, you can easily see the differences between the SS band of the old one vs the new. You can also see where they moved the mute button over.

But it's more than just changing the seats somewhat. It's changing to an entirely new engine with twice the HP and torque. Changing the transmission and drive train. Changing the emission controls and computer system, etc. even if the exterior just had minor changes in the doors and the side mirrors, any auto magazine would consider this to be a car with major new changes, and the company would modify the name for that.

I'd hardly compare moving the SS band and the mute switch to restyling a cars mirrors or headlights. You can't tell me the 4S is in any way more physically appealing than the 4 because of those minute changes. The upgrade from 4 to 4S was also like doubling the horse power, but cutting the gas mileage in half lol.

There's nothing wrong with the current iPhone design, but i'm ready for something new. I'm glad i'm on the two year cycle where I will most likely be upgrading every time there is a change in hardware. I don't know what I want it to look like, but I'm sure Apple will tell me

I don't see how the concept can't be clear to anyone. A 5th generation piece of hardware exists already. Apple calls it the iPhone 4S. It also seems clear that they've decided to let a primary body design carry across 2 hardware generations, using the "S" to distinguish between them.

When a new phone is released in 2012 or 2013, it will be a 6th generation piece of hardware. There is nothing in its generation or its hardware/processor/cell tech that will indicate a "5". So why on earth would Apple name it as such?

Based on previous patterns, I would fully expect the next iPhone to have a significantly different exterior than the 4 and 4S. The one after that (7th gen hardware) will probably have an "S" on it's name.

I'm not claiming to know that Apple will definitately call it the "iPhone 6". The only thing I'm sure of is that it will definitely NOT be the "iPhone 5". Sure, it could possibly be the iPhone LTE, air, or whatever.

To claim that the iPhone 4 was a mere coincidence in the naming scheme is, to me, totally absurd.

I can't wait to revisit this thread once said phone is released to see what reaction/response melgross has.

The only people who care about the numbering system are the asbergerish internet groupies for Apple, or some of them.

Nobody else is counting. Everybody else on the planet expects the next phone to be a 5, as the present phone is 4.X model.

If they dont keep the numbering system - which they may not, it is all moot. But if they do keep the numbering system they will call the next phone the iPhone 5. Because to most people, people without the nebbishness of internet addicts, the next phone is a 5.

It's a marketing term. If there is an Model 3 Acme, followed by a Model 3S acme, the next big change is a Model 4 Acme. There are probably plenty of examples of this in product history.

Whats not happening in any of Apple's releases is a count. There was no 2. There was no 3. The 4 coincidentally was the 4th release, but it could have been the 3rd release if they had not bother with the 3GS or had used a new design for that release cycle. ( Remember the 2 is missing).

Conversely if Apple had released another 3G branded phone with the same design - a 3GS+ model, then the next phone with a change to the design would have been an iPhone 4.

*The 5 on the slide does the explosion effect; a 6 shows up in its place. Tim Cook's smiling from ear to ear*

iPhone 2G, 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S...

6 doesn't fit the pattern. When the numbers go too high, it starts to look bad. Like The Simpsons season 23. You just feel like they've had a long run and it's time to move on.

The good thing about numbering is you know what the latest model is. Most people wouldn't know if a Galaxy S is newer or older than a Nexus or an Evo but usually too many numbered sequels are bad as it looks like an iteration rather than something innovative.

They can't use the same number three times so it has to go 5, 5S, 6, 6S or some variation of that.

If they decide to move the phone components outside of the device and sell iPods, they can even rebrand the entire device. One day communication by data has to overtake calls as it's flat-fee worldwide and you don't need phone numbers. Just put the cell parts in a bumper/sled and let it die out gradually, sell the exact same models of iPod Touch everywhere in the world unlocked. Carriers can still offer you a contract but there are other options.

Whatever the next device is, there's no question it will be a hot item. People generally like new designs more than faster performance and it is the last device Steve Jobs worked on - I suspect some people mistakingly bought the iPhone 4S for this reason, not realising how product cycles work.

2) The pattern has been either to note the cellular generation or device generation, with an 'S' added when the performance increased while the casing remained mostly unaltered.

3) I don't think anyone is arguing that it will be iPhone 6, only that so much is either 3rd/4th generation (cellular) or 6th generation (device) and that "5" fits none of these previous naming conventions squarely placed on the generation.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Can you give me any explanation for why "iPhone 5" makes any sense using any criteria pertaining to ANY aspect of the device?

Playing devils advocate here: how about year number 5?

I know, 2007-2012 counts like 6, but if you count it as in 'summer 2007 the first iPhone that was released, so summer 2008 it existed 1 year' you'll get to year #5 for this years' iPhone. That is, if there's a new iPhone. We don't know, just like we don't know if there'll be an iOS6 this year, or an A6 processor for that matter.

But skip all that crap; I thing your (and Solipsisms') points are valid. Through this whole thread, and all previous ones on the numbering.

Can you give me any explanation for why "iPhone 5" makes any sense using any criteria pertaining to ANY aspect of the device?

And can you give me any explanation for why iPhone 6 does NOT make sense, given that it will be the 6th iPhone, run iOS 6 and have an A6 processor?

It will confuse people as it leaves a number gap between the 4S and 6. People will wonder where the iPhone 5 went - it's not such a huge problem with the first one as it really didn't have an official number - Apple calls it iPhone (Original) and people have assigned it the name 2G due to it lacking 3G and only having EDGE. The A6 doesn't matter for naming because the 4S has an A5 chip in it and is the 5th phone.

One thing I do find curious is the lack of an update for the iPod Touch:

If they decide to merge the iPhone and iPod lines in some way, it will be a 5th gen iPod. There's perhaps not an elegant enough solution to do this but I really dislike standard cell networks.

SMS/MMS is old hat in a world of email and Twitter.
Calling by number is like visiting web pages by IP address - yes that's what address books are for but it shouldn't be the user's job to maintain this. When you go into a shop or service and they ask for a contact number and email address, it's far easier to give them your email address than your number because a number is not something that we immediately identify with as they have no inherent association.

As it turned out, Apple originally wanted to run their own network separate from carriers using wifi. With iMessage, FaceTime, Twitter integration and other services like Google Voice, BBM and Skype (bought by Microsoft), it's clear we are heading for a data-pipe communication network. The carriers will resist it but they will have no choice but to play along.

By externalising the cell parts of the iPhone, it means people can buy a call-capable device without a contract anywhere in the world, fully unlocked. Just plug in a sled from a carrier to get calling ability or LTE. It encourages use of data-only services, which benefits iPad users. It makes it easy to sell/upgrade your device without dealing with the carrier.

It will confuse people as it leaves a number gap between the 4S and 6.

People weren't confused by the gap between the iPhone and the iPhone 3G. I already went over that. People assumed iPhone 2, they were completely wrong, and so they transitioned smoothly into iPhone 3G.

Quote:

The A6 doesn't matter for naming because the 4S has an A5 chip in it and is the 5th phone.

Just like the A4 didn't matter for naming because 4 had an A4 chip and was the 4th phone running iOS 4.

People weren't confused by the gap between the iPhone and the iPhone 3G. I already went over that. People assumed iPhone 2, they were completely wrong, and so they transitioned smoothly into iPhone 3G.

Just like the A4 didn't matter for naming because 4 had an A4 chip and was the 4th phone running iOS 4.

What? Sounds like you are implying that the iPhone nomenclature can't have a letter after it or that there was no 3G iPhone. Either way both exist.

the 3G was a marketing term, marketing a faster radio. It has a number, but thats conincidental, the number does not mean anything about a generation or count.

Therefore people who are suggesting that this is a "skipped generation" are talking through their asses.

The iPhone 4 is also a marketing term. It came as the 4th phone by coincidence, only. If they had skipped the 3GS - and moved to a new design - the 3G would have been followed by the iPhone 4, not the 3GS. If, instead, they had an iPhone 3GS+ as the 4th phone, the 5th phone would be the iPhone 4.

when a new design comes out it will, therefore be the iPhone 5, or possibly the 4G - if they keep numbers. Apple's marketing department are not counting, and nor should you.

Lol. I actually think you are a troll. You are, pretty much, in a minority of one in the world.

No matter how often it is explained to you that the numbers are marketing terms and not counting anything, no matter how much the universe disagrees - and absolutely no one in the wider universe, or internet, thinks that the iPhone will be an iPhone 6 ( try find an article which agrees with you), you refuse to succumb to obvious logic.

THEY ARE NOT COUNTING RELEASES. The numbers change with a change to the outside design, or the radio chip. That's it. That's all.

That trivial truth is recognised by everybody in the world except you, and possibly, one other poster on AI.

the 3G was a marketing term, marketing a faster radio. It has a number, but thats conincidental, the number does not mean anything about a generation or count.

Now you're claiming that the iPhone 3G had nothing to do with a generation count despite the fact that it had 3rd generation cellular tech.

Quote:

Therefore people who are suggesting that this is a "skipped generation" are talking through their asses.

You suggesting that the iPhone has skipped a generation is the first mention of it. The rational people have clearly noted the generation has been obviously sequential, but the marketing terminology has not.

Quote:

The iPhone 4 is also a marketing term. It came as the 4th phone by coincidence, only.

It was the 4th generation iPhone. It's pretty fucking simple. There is no coincidence nor prior history of Apple adding a lone number after the iPhone that was not directly related to it's generation.

Quote:

If they had skipped the 3GS - and moved to a new design - the 3G would have been followed by the iPhone 4, not the 3GS. If, instead, they had an iPhone 3GS+ as the 4th phone, the 5th phone would be the iPhone 4.

Let's examine what you just said...

You're now claiming the 3ed generation iPhone would have been called the iPhone 4 because the 2nd generation was called iPhone 3G.

Again, you're claiming that '4' follows '3G'?

Quote:

Apple's marketing department are not counting, and nor should you.

iPhone 3G (Apple's marketing is counting the well known cellular radio generation).
iPhone 3GS (Apple's market is still counting the cellular generation but are adding 'S' for speed as noted by Steve Jobs).
iPhone 4 (Apple's marketing is counting the generation of the device. Let's recap: The iPhone 4 is the 4th generation iPhone).

So we have determined that Apple has skipped consecutive numbers when they don't match up to generational releases yet you think it has to be iPhone 5 because of a scenario that has no precedence with iPhone nomenclature. You might want to leave a trail if you're going to venture further into Narnia.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

So that means that by your reckoning if they change the case and add LTE they have no choice but to call it iPhone 4 because "That's it. That's all." Awesome¡

FFS. The idiocy continues.

Lets do it remedially.

1) iPhone- not a count.
2) iPhone 3G - not a count. Named after the change of radio chip.
3) iPhone 3GS - not a count. Added an s.
4) iPhone 4 - change of design so a marketing change of name. Not a count.
5) iPhone 4S - not a count.

I cant really try any harder than this. Nobody outside two people, two lone people, on this site only think that the next generation iPhone will be called anything other than the iPhone 5 ( or possibly the 4G). The rest of the internet says 5. The rest of the internet is right, and your insane logic is wrong. Even if the counting were correct, it would be a marketing nightmare to go from 4 to 6.

If they want to advertise the chip, it will be called the iPhone 4G. Then the next phone will be the iPhone 5, even though it is the 7th phone.

1) iPhone- not a count.
2) iPhone 3G - not a count. Named after the change of radio chip.
3) iPhone 3GS - not a count. Added an s.
4) iPhone 4 - change of design so a marketing change of name. Not a count.
5) iPhone 4S - not a count.

I cant really try any harder than this. Nobody outside two people, two lone people, on this site only think that the next generation iPhone will be called anything other than the iPhone 5 ( or possibly the 4G). The rest of the internet says 5. The rest of the internet is right, and your insane logic is wrong. Even if the counting were correct, it would be a marketing nightmare to go from 4 to 6.

If they want to advertise the chip, it will be called the iPhone 4G. Then the next phone will be the iPhone 5, even though it is the 7th phone.

If they keep a number system.

Give it up. It was hilarious once, but it is tiresome now.

So you now admit the iPhone 3G was named after the 3rd generation cellular being used. And you admit that the iPhone 4 was named because it was the 4th generation iPhone being sold.

So how do you get iPhone 5 when their is nothing 5th generation about any of it. The iPhone will be 6th generation. The case design, if they change it, will be 4th generation*. The cellular tech, if they add LTE, will be 4th generation. iOS will be 6.0. The Apple PoP will A6.

There is absolutely nothing 5th generation about the device the claim has to be marketed as iPhone 5. Maybe they will because they have to keep it simple for the simpletons but nothing you've stated logically defends that position.

* Is TS correct? Do yo think the 4th gen iPhone with the A4 chip running iOS 4.0 was coincidentally called iPhone 4.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

It's not all that important tbh but the OS version and chip version have no relation to the numbering - the iPad 2 is the second iPad with a 10" screen, 3G, an A5, running iOS 5. Nothing besides it being the second version relates to the number.

Once you exclude iOS6 (there may not even be an iOS 6 next year) and the A6, nothing about the next device will suggest it should be called iPhone 6.

The next iPad might not be iPad3 but iPad 2S and use the A6 chip but we'll just have to wait and see. I certainly hope the next iPhone gets a new design so it warrants a number other than 4.

I give you credit for finding one thing about the next iPhone that might have 5 in it but I wonder if it might not be 4,2. The 2nd generation change the casing and added 3G cellular HW and it only jumped to 1,2 from 1,1,

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

How could they try something that doesn't exist beyond a few technical documentation papers and has no standardization, no chips made, and certainly no networks set up?!

It doesn't have to be a 3rd party standard. Apple can do something like making call reception higher by using other iPhones as repeaters. Instead of you sending data direct to a cell tower 1 mile away, you may only have to send data to the nearest iPhone half a mile away, which subsequently sends the data to the tower.

They can do this for open wifi networks too e.g your iPhone down the street might be in range of someone's iPhone sitting in Starbucks in range of wifi so it can do a passthrough to the wifi. There would have to be strict controls to prevent significant battery drain but even if it boosted a few data requests, it would be an advantage e.g no more than 1-2 hops to the cell tower or wifi spot, no more than a certain amount shared per phone per day (up to say 10% battery life).

They should use 4G networking too though so it becomes 4G + 1 cool feature = 5G.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

All right, so why was the iPhone 4 called the iPhone 4?

Because it was a new design so had to have a major number revision to identify it unlike the 4S and 3GS. If the next iPhone keeps the same design, there's no reason to call it either an iPhone 5 or 6.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

So you're just blatantly ignoring how it's the 6th iPhone.

Nope, I dismissed it because the number of phone it is doesn't determine the label as the iPhone 3G (2nd) and 4S (5th) would show.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

So if there is an A6 chip this year (because come on, there has to be), will you concede my point?

Which point? I think there will be an A6 chip but that it won't influence the naming convention in any way. I don't see much reason for them to make an iOS 6 next year.

I can see where you're coming from with the iPhone 4 being the only single numbered phone that had an A4 running iOS 4 in a 4th version product and so a 6th version product running iOS 6 and an A6 chip would follow being the iPhone 6 but I think it would have been called the iPhone 4 solely based on the design change regardless of OS, chip and product revision to follow the numbering sequence after the 3GS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

I give you credit for finding one thing about the next iPhone that might have 5 in it but I wonder if it might not be 4,2. The 2nd generation change the casing and added 3G cellular HW and it only jumped to 1,2 from 1,1,

It doesn't need to have anything with a 5 really. The last one is 4S so it follows that the 4S + 1 generation = 5. You either add a letter or a single digit to increment the generation.

I think the major revision number will refer to the chipset. The iPhone Original and 3G had almost the exact same CPU/GPU performance and RAM. The 3GS made a big jump so new major revision number. Every other one has had major internal upgrades. But you're right, it could be iPhone4,2 and since 4+2=6, I guess that means it has to be iPhone 6 .

It doesn't need to have anything with a 5 really. The last one is 4S so it follows that the 4S + 1 generation = 5. You either add a letter or a single digit to increment the generation.

That brings the argument to "it will be called iPhone 5 because the current iPhone has a '4' in the name." That's a valid argument from a purely marketing standpoint with no consideration for anything outside that very limited window. The arguments that aren't valid are calling it an iPhone 5 because it's any way the 5th generation iPhone.

I don't think iPhone 6 is great but I think iPhone 5 is worse. Does Apple advertise "Announcing the iPhone 5 4G with iOS 6.0?" I don't think so.

Quote:

But you're right, it could be iPhone4,2 and since 4+2=6, I guess that means it has to be iPhone 6 .

That isn't how those valued are counted. It wold mean the values chronologically are 2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 5.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

It doesn't have to be a 3rd party standard. Apple can do something like making call reception higher by using other iPhones as repeaters. Instead of you sending data direct to a cell tower 1 mile away, you may only have to send data to the nearest iPhone half a mile away, which subsequently sends the data to the tower.

Would the carriers be happy with that? I certainly don't feel okay with other people hopping off of my iPhone.

If the next iPhone keeps the same design, there's no reason to call it either an iPhone 5 or 6.

I don't think there's a single rumor that says it will. And there's also no established name to give it if it keeps the same body a third time, but why am I even mentioning that? The iPhone 5 crowd doesn't care about established names.

Quote:

Nope, I dismissed it because the number of phone it is doesn't determine the label as the iPhone 3G (2nd) and 4S (5th) would show.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE IPHONE FOUR. For the love of humanity, are you all purposely ignoring what I'm saying? This isn't 4chan. Rule 11 of the Internet doesn't apply here. You're all tiptoeing around the fact that I'm unequivocally RIGHT about why they named the iPhone 4 the iPhone 4. Why?!

Quote:

Which point? I think there will be an A6 chip but that it won't influence the naming convention in any way.

Other than the iPhone 4 being partially named after its own chip, sure.

Quote:

I don't see much reason for them to make an iOS 6 next year.

Other then them having released a new version of iOS every year prior, sure.

Quote:

I can see where you're coming from with the iPhone 4 being the only single numbered phone that had an A4 running iOS 4 in a 4th version product and so a 6th version product running iOS 6 and an A6 chip would follow being the iPhone 6…

YES. THANK YOU.

Quote:

…but I think it would have been called the iPhone 4 solely based on the design change…

NO. It was the third redesign. So it should have been called the "iPhone 3" by that logic.

Quote:

…to follow the numbering sequence after the 3GS.

WHAT numbering sequence?! You've already said that the "3G" in the name "isn't a number" and "can't be construed as a number" even though these people's argument is that "people assume that 'after 4S comes 5', despite that making ABSOLUTELY NO FREAKING SENSE WHATSOEVER, and THEN you go and contradict yourself by claiming that 3GS somehow is a 'numbering sequence'?! No.

According to half of what these people say, the iPhone 4 couldn't possibly have been called the iPhone 4. Following their logic, it should have been:

iPhone
iPhone 3G -this isn't a numbering sequence, it's a telephony, that's why no iPhone 2 makes sense
iPhone 3GS -this is a numbering sequence, it has nothing to do with telephony
iPhone 3 -after the third redesign of the case, because that's all that matters
————continuity break————
iPhone 4S -this is a numbering sequence, it has nothing to do with telephony
iPhone 5 -because 5 comes after 4, despite it being the 6th model and having nothing to do with 5G
iPhone 5S -because that's the only thing that could ever possibly make sense, given the past
iPhone 6 -because 6 comes after 5, despite this iPhone being the EIGHTH FREAKING MODEL.

That's what I'm reading when I combine all this nonsense together. STOP CONTRADICTING YOURSELVES.

Quote:

It doesn't need to have anything with a 5 really. The last one is 4S so it follows that the 4S + 1 generation = 5. You either add a letter or a single digit to increment the generation.

I'm going to go to Schrödinger's grave, dig him up, revive him, and get him to slap every single one of the iPhone 5 crowd. Are you listening to yourselves?! 3G can't simultaneously stand for telephony and generation of device.

Quote:

I think the major revision number will refer to the chipset.

So it should be iPhone 4G to you, not iPhone 5.

Quote:

The 3GS made a big jump so new major revision number.

Other than the fact that 3G was already a "major revision """"""number"""""".

Quote:

But you're right, it could be iPhone4,2 and since 4+2=6, I guess that means it has to be iPhone 6 .

I feel like I'm talking to the trolls here. I want to send PMs to everyone sane on this forum to have them come here and set people straight.

I'm not done. I'm just taking a break for now. You haven't won, I just feel it prudent to step away and scream at some squirrels. At least they don't count their nuts twice and pretend they have fewer than they do.

I'm going to go to Heisenberg's grave, dig him up, revive him, and get him to slap every single one of the iPhone 5 crowd. Are you listening to yourselves?! 3G can't simultaneously stand for telephony and generation of device.

I feel like I'm talking to the trolls here. I want to send PMs to everyone sane on this forum to have them come here and set people straight.

I'm not done. I'm just taking a break for now. You haven't won, I just feel it prudent to step away and scream at some squirrels. At least they don't count their nuts twice and pretend they have fewer than they do.

Words (or numbers for that matter) cannot describe how I value the posts in this thread! I thank you so much for the logic, the reasoned and founded statements, arguments, yes, and all the laughs. It really has become the most memorable post I have read. Ever, on any site.

I'm really tired of the guys that write articles claiming that iPhone 4s is the same design as the 4. It is just plain ignorance folks and frankly Apple insider can do better. The phone has all of the following new: antenna, battery, processor, base band chips, GPS system, effectively all new electronics.

As to a flat panel, how much innovation does one expect there? A little bigger a little smaller, a little brighter or a little darker, all nice to contemplate but they are not something that is as compelling as a the other new capabilities.

As to iPhone 5 sorry guys but don't get wound up in the hype, it is a phone that sits in your pocket next to your best friend. Apple has already done the major moves to deliver innovation in this field, the rest is incremental improvements. And yes a larger screen is an incremental improvement.

Really I don't understand why so many get so wrapped up in their cell phones. It is nothing more than a tool and frankly iPad beats it hands down in many ways. Gotta believe many have something missing in their personal life.

People equate design to the exterior. Obviously, that misses a large portion of the picture. The interior has been significantly redesigned to accommodate the revised hardware. With that said, a larger screen might be incremental, but the iPhone is the smallest phone of its type. It's screen is beautiful, but it looks tiny compared to even 4 inch models.

I would love to see Apple increase the screen size without dramatically increasing the overall size of the phone. This likely would be possible by bringing the screen out to the edge, and possibly rethinking the home button (either its placement or by removing it entirely).